Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-22 15:37:12 EDT --- Finally. This is the first one of these I've seen being done, so I'll have a few probably obvious questions. First off, why the hsc_name macro? Or rather, why go to the trouble of defining it to "ghc" only to use "ghc" explicitly later? Wouldn't it be simpler just to not use the macro at all? If you build a package against ghc-zlib, will it be required at runtime? I guess what's confusing me is all the talk of static linking, and yet the .a file is packaged, which implies that this is really some sort of -devel package needed at compile time. Is there no kind of runtime/-devel split of these packages? There's no reason to include the LICENSE file twice, is there? Otherwise the %ghc_* macros hide all of the complexity nicely. I'm not sure I'd know how to find a test suite if one were included, so I can't really check that. With some good answers to the above questions I don't see any reason this wouldn't pass review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review